Steve Georganas (Hindmarsh, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Board and Other Measures) Bill 2006. The purpose of this bill is to consolidate and revise the governance arrangements for the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, or CSS, the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme, or PSS, and the Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan, or PSSap, with effect from 1 July 2006. Before I speak on the substance of this bill I would like to place on the record my views of the government’s superannuation changes announced in the budget—particularly, the Treasurer’s contemptuous attitude to every Australian saving for retirement.

The budget announced that the 15 per cent exit tax on superannuation payments would be abolished. The first point I would like to make is that this does not help many Australians. Why? For the simple reason that it only applies to those with savings over $129,751 and the majority of Australians do not have this kind of money when they retire. I see many people in my electorate of Hindmarsh, where 25 per cent of the population are 65 or over, and, believe me, many of those people are retiring on very little super or none at all.

The second point I would like to make is how ridiculous—in fact, reckless—was the Treasurer’s statement that there is no need to get financial advice on superannuation anymore. The Treasurer said on 10 May:

... you don’t need a financial adviser to get into superannuation ... Can I say to you one of the reasons why people have been going to financial advisers is the end rules have been so complex. Once we sweep those away then I don’t think you will need a financial adviser at the end of the superannuation chain either because you will know this one thing, that your superannuation will come out of the fund tax free.

This is clearly nonsense. In the very same budget there are changes which make the superannuation system even more complex. Take the planned new rules on contribution limits. The limit of $50,000 a year for those under 50 creates new complexity. Some of the rules are backdated and are not finalised due to the need for transitional provisions. In fact, the Treasurer’s own assistant, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Mr Pearce, stated last week: ‘I would have thought it would have been the opposite.’ This superannuation system is so confusing that the Treasurer and his assistant cannot agree—or maybe it is just that they do not talk to each other. I have to agree with the Treasurer’s assistant on this occasion: the changes in the superannuation system make it more complicated, not less.

The bill enters the House as a result of the Review of the corporate governance of statutory authorities and office holders, which reported in mid-2003. In November 2002, the government appointed Mr John Uhrig to conduct a review of the corporate governance of Commonwealth statutory authorities and office holders. The objective of the review was to identify issues in relation to existing governance arrangements and to provide policy options for government to gain the best from statutory authorities and office holders and their accountability frameworks.

The Uhrig review recommended two templates for government statutory authorities to ensure good governance: agencies should be managed either by a chief executive officer or by a board structure. The review states:

Two templates have been developed incorporating these governance principles. A ‘Board Template’ is proposed where government takes the decision to delegate full powers to act to a board, or where the Commonwealth itself does not fully own the assets or equity of a statutory authority (that is, there are multiple accountabilities). The ‘Executive Management Template’ is proposed in other cases.

The review found the following: firstly, that the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 should be applied to the statutory authorities and that these organisations should be governed by a CEO and, secondly, that the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 should be applied to the statutory authority and that these organisations should be governed by a board. The opposition supports this bill.

See this speech in context